Supreme Court grants gay marriage cases

[JollyRoger]

Thise case present more issues besides just gay marriage. In fact, the COurt may not even reach the merits of either case as it addreessess standing issues.

GW - you should be in favor of the Court striking down DOMA as unconstitutional.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm just asking what their logic is, not asking you to make me agree with it.

I'm just saying that discussing the logic is pointless. While I don't hope to ever convince you of everything, you give the same set of 5 responses to any question involving politics. I don't want to read them yet again.

Thise case present more issues besides just gay marriage. In fact, the COurt may not even reach the merits of either case as it addreessess standing issues.

Are they taking them up as separate cases or as one?

Also, what does your second sentence mean?

 

[anandus]

Next you'll say between a man and a donkey, right?

Euhm.. No? Just to people?
No need to ridicule that.

If DOMA gets overturned, it means that if you get Same Sex Married in a state that allows it, you can go to any other state and they have to recognize the marriage and grant you all the priveledges that go along with being married.

Thanks for the explanation

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Euhm.. No? Just to people?
No need to ridicule that.

Well, I apologize for being so curt. In fairness though, whenever someone starts saying things along those lines, that's exactly where they're heading with their argument in an attempt to discredit SSM.

If the gays marry, the people will marry animals and dads will marry daughters and ehmagerd!
^I'm sure you've run into that a few times around these threads.

Going back to give you a serious answer:

So, if I understand this correctly, if this gets overturned it means states aren't allowed to block same-sex marriages? Or marriage between left-handed and right-handed people? Or people with blue eyes and brown eyes? Or a protestand and a hindu?

You'd have to ask JR, but I'm pretty sure overturning DOMA will only affect the status of SSM marriages as those are the only ones that are blocked in some states and not others.

We don't allow states to block marriages on race, nationality, religious or any other unreasonable grounds. The question before us as a society now is whether or not homosexuality counts as a unreasonable ground to block a marriage.

Many progressives think it is, while many conservatives think it is an reasonable ground to block a marriage akin to bestiality, etc. (Read up on some statements from people like Rick Santorum if you think I'm joking)

 

[GhostWriter16]

GW - you should be in favor of the Court striking down DOMA as unconstitutional.

Regarding DOMA:

There are two parts to it. One part is the Federal recognition of SSM, to which the only constitutional response is that since it is not in the constitution, no marriage should be recognized at a Federal level. All marriage recognition should be state level.

The second part is the part where a state can refuse to recognize a gay marriage license from another state. I know there is a clause in the constitution that can be constructed to forbid this, but IIRC the clause was intended to be for court cases. I could be wrong on this one though, its not something I know a whole lot about. I do know that if the constitution does require states to recognize gay marriage performed in other states, the constitution should be amended to allow each state to truly make its own decision.

Well, I apologize for being so curt. In fairness though, whenever someone starts saying things along those lines, that's exactly where they're heading with their argument in an attempt to discredit SSM.

If the gays marry, the people will marry animals and dads will marry daughters and ehmagerd!
^I'm sure you've run into that a few times around these threads.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The constitution is sacred, except for those things I disagree with, they need to be amended!

 

[duckstab]

Can somebody explain to me how gay marriage could be against the constitution?
How is that at all possible?

In my opinion, it's not. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should be read to bar the states from prohibiting marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex, just as it has been read in the past to bar states from prohibiting interracial marriage. (For that matter, I don't see why marriage among 3 or more consenting adults should be illegal, either, but that's a different story.)

However, it doesn't look like the Court is prepared to rule on this most fundamental question yet. It looks like in both cases there are issues of "standing" to be sorted out first. If those issues don't break a certain way, it may be next term before we have a case arguing for/against marriage equality on the merits.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

However, it doesn't look like the Court is prepared to rule on this most fundamental question yet. It looks like in both cases there are issues of "standing" to be sorted out first. If those issues don't break a certain way, it may be next term before we have a case arguing for/against marriage equality on the merits.

Can you explain what you mean by all this please?

 

[Goodfella]

the constitution should be amended to allow each state to truly make its own decision.

You're proposing removing the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

 

[Antilogic]

Issues of standing relate to whether you have a just and legal cause to show up in court and demand whatever redress you are asking for. Basically, it's figuring out which questions should be asked before they decide on any possible answers.



EDIT: This was an off-the-cuff and very general/vague response here, it's actually more complicated than I'm making it sound. But I hope it suffices to point people in the right direction.

 

[anandus]

Well, I apologize for being so curt. In fairness though, whenever someone starts saying things along those lines, that's exactly where they're heading with their argument in an attempt to discredit SSM.

My reaction is mostly because to me it's so outlandish that some people would be denied marriage because of sexual preference. To me it's the same as being denied because of hair colour, religion or music taste.
=================
Duckstab:
Thanks for your reply!

(I always thought that multiple wives in the US was legal?
I thought for example mormons and moslims are allowed to have multiple wives in the US?
But I don't want to get offtopic)

 

[Antilogic]

You are only allowed one "legal" spouse for tax purposes as well as all those other civil benefits granted with marriage, but you can live with as many people in whatever house you choose to and call it what you want. Assuming they are all consenting adults, of course.

 

[warpus]

(I always thought that multiple wives in the US was legal?
I thought for example mormons and moslims are allowed to have multiple wives in the US?
But I don't want to get offtopic)

If I remember correctly Muslims marrying multiple women was legal for a short while in 2002, when President Bush made it legal as a punishment for 9/11. It was then struck down by a judge.

None of that is of course true.

 

[JollyRoger]

On the standing issues, in both cases (which will likely be argued back-to-back on the same day) there are questions as to whether the pro-bigot side may have issues on being allowed to pursue their cases. In the Prop 8 case, the pro-bigot group forced their way into the litigation. In the DOMA case, the Republicans in Congress have attempted to force their way onto the pro-bigot side of the docket after the executive branch dropped off of defending bigotry. The Supreme Court needs to sort whether these pro-bigit substitutions are legally sound before getting to the other issues.

Lack of standing has been effectively used to put a stop to litigation brought by environmentalists and birthers. We shall see if the bigots get the same treatment.

 

[duckstab]

Issues of standing relate to whether you have a just and legal cause to show up in court and demand whatever redress you are asking for. Basically, it's figuring out which questions should be asked before they decide on any possible answers.

EDIT: This was an off-the-cuff and very general/vague response here, it's actually more complicated than I'm making it sound. But I hope it suffices to point people in the right direction.

Right. So for example, w/r/t Proposition 8, the California State Supreme Court has already ruled that it violated California's State Constitution. The proponents of Proposition 8 apparently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, so the first question to be answered is, do they have a legal right to do so? If the answer is "no", that means that

a) The California Court's ruling stands. That means marriage equality is guaranteed by the California Constitution. Pretty much the end of the story in that state.
b) The U.S. Supreme Court will not rule (based on this particular case) on whether The U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing SSM.

I don't fully understand the issues around DOMA, but it seems there are some similar preliminary questions to be resolved there as well.

 

[ace99]

Holy crap. MY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR IS ORGASMING IN THE MIDDLE OF CLASS!

I guess I know what the exam question is going to be!

 

[History_Buff]

(I always thought that multiple wives in the US was legal?
I thought for example mormons and moslims are allowed to have multiple wives in the US?
But I don't want to get offtopic)

Nope. In fact, a lot of Mormons (including Mitt Romney's grandfather?) fled to Mexico when the US government began cracking down on their polygamist ways.

 

[Zack]

Nope. In fact, a lot of Mormons (including Mitt Romney's grandfather?) fled to Mexico when the US government began cracking down on their polygamist ways.

They also haven't practiced polygamy in over a hundred years, IIRC.

 

[FriendlyFire]

If I remember correctly Muslims marrying multiple women was legal for a short while in 2002, when President Bush made it legal as a punishment for 9/11. It was then struck down by a judge.

None of that is of course true.

Wot ?
But Republicans have multiple wives ALL the time ! Look how many wives Newt Gringich has ! Or McCain or Vetter ... wait a second

 

[JollyRoger]

FF . . . marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a series of women.